The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 — 
	[Sylvia Heal in the Chair]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not willing to give way at this moment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.

David Heath: I am still on the first section of my speech, and I should make progress.
	The Government's guidance is more important that it has been given credit for, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate it further.
	The difficulty with the law as it stands is that there is clearly a misunderstanding as to what is reasonable force. That misunderstanding lies not solely with the householder but with jurors, police and prosecution authorities. The latter two are the most problematic.
	There is also the problem of what constitutes reasonable force in the circumstances—the test of the reasonable man. The Law Commission drew attention to that in its report of July 2003 on partial defences to murder, stating:
	"We acknowledge that such a person, though genuinely acting in fear, might not always act 'reasonably' so as to attract the full defence of self-defence."
	That acknowledges the fact that the householder whose home has been intruded upon and is in genuine fear for their own safety or that of their family may not act as a reasonable person who is devising a statute in this House or construing it in a court of law, because they are afraid and angry; they have a mixture of emotions that may cause them to act in a way that might appear unreasonable in the cold light of day but is entirely reasonable in the context of the circumstances in which they find themselves.
	There is a further difficulty that applies in many of our constituencies. I represent a very rural area. In many parts of my constituency, someone who disturbs an intruder in their house will not, with the best will in the world, get a police response for some time. They are very frightened about that. My constituents often say to me, "If they come to me, sir, I will have a shotgun ready." I reply, "I should be very careful about the way you use that shotgun, but I understand your fear." People fear that they no longer have the protection of a police force. That applies particularly in rural areas, but also, I am sure, in many urban areas. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to be unreasonable in those circumstances because they are genuinely in fear of what will happen to them, and particularly to their loved ones. People in such circumstances sometimes act with a greater degree of force in protecting their loved ones than in protecting themselves; that is understandable.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better confine our remarks to the Bill before the House.

Henry Bellingham: No, I am not saying that he is a liar. I am just saying that the guy has been got at. He was put in a very tricky position. He spoke his mind; he spoke common sense. He got a telephone call from No. 10, probably, and was told that he must sort himself out and toe the Government line. I hope that I have not overstepped the mark, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark because if one talks to any member of the public—I talking not about the liberal intelligentsia, the beltway media or Home Office civil servants, but about normal, ordinary people, and there are millions of them out there—one finds that they feel very strongly indeed that the current law is unclear, their rights are uncertain and something should be done about it.
	I have looked carefully at my hon. Friend's Bill. He has put a lot of time and effort into it and, although it may be short, it has two key arms. He has put forward an incredibly convincing, very strong case. He deserves to get his Bill through Parliament and I hope that all hon. Members will support his Bill.

Stephen Pound: Vinnie Jones once received a red card within three seconds of coming on to the pitch. Once, in the Hammersmith Catholic primary schools league, I was sent off before I had even come on to the pitch, but I do not think that anyone has ever had an intervention, not just halfway through their first sentence but halfway through their first word. Let us record this moment of parliamentary history.
	In response to the slightly premature ejaculation of my hon. Friend, those who subjected me to what was, I think, a rather gross form of violence were in fact not the honest listeners of Radio 4—as far as I can gather, they were all on the slopes at Chamonix at the time—but a group of website gun fanatics, headed by an organisation called Cybershooters, who orchestrated a campaign against me.
	Having responded to that intervention, I shall try to remember precisely what I was going to say when I stood up. First, like other Members, I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) not on the turn of the dice, the piece of good fortune that gave him No. 1 in the ballot, which anyone of us could have achieved—although few of us did and few of us will—but on raising an issue that clearly resonates with the public far beyond this place. He has his finger on the pulse and he is right to raise the issue. Where I diverge from him is to say that his response, I fear, is wrong. Macaulay famously said that evil was the root but bitter was the fruit, and in this case I think that the evil root has, unfortunately, corrupted the hon. Gentleman's argument.
	Nobody on either side of the House would attempt to make the case that everything is sweetness and light in the streets of suburbia or in the farmlands of Norfolk. People are afraid. There is no question about that. There are two responses that we can make to address that fear and concern. The first, which would be intellectual treason, would be to try to ramp up that fear, to engender a climate of even greater fear, knowing full well in our hearts and minds that the responses proposed—the baseball bat solution, the pit, the petrol-covering, the ignition solutions—will not solve the problem, but will make it worse. The second response would be to ask what is the nature of the fear and what can we best do to address it, calmly and less dramatically. That genuinely is the issue we face.
	We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) of a case where a postmaster killed someone breaking into his post office and was not charged. Members may be familiar with the case of Nick Baungartner who was a householder in a fight with a 6 ft 2 in intruder, Robert Ingham, who was 22-years-old. That happened in Ockbrook in Derbyshire in December 1995. Mr. Baungartner claimed that Mr. Ingham, armed with a shovel, had ambushed him like a madman. A fight ensued and the heroic—I use the word judiciously—Mr. Baungartner defended himself, breaking the bones in both his hands as he did so. Ultimately, Mr. Ingham, a redundant apprentice joiner from Derby, died from a neck injury. Mr. Baungartner suffered considerable psychological damage, but he was not prosecuted. Quite rightly. He was a householder in his own home, a 60-year-old man who was attacked by a 22-year-old thug with a shovel. He was not prosecuted. However, the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Newark would go further than that. He says that Mr. Baungartner should not even have had his case investigated. The presumption should have been so overwhelmingly on the side of the householder that there should not even have been an investigation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon rightly pointed out that that would mean the abolition of the Coroners Act 1988, because at present there is a statutory duty. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised the case of a former high sheriff of Kent and two incidents with a shotgun. In neither case was the gentleman charged, but the cases were investigated. Before we turn to other aspects of the Bill and the apparent simplicity—

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am reluctant to be thought too oppositional, so for the record of the House, I wish to say that the hon. and gallant Member for Newark has acted out of the best possible motives. Some people—thankfully, not in the House—would build a political platform and use the bones of a 16-year-old boy as part of the foundations. The hon. Gentleman is not one of those people; he is responding to widespread public concern. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is absolutely right, and the point that he makes leads us to the anomalies that we are talking about. What about tenants? What about squatters? What about someone who invites a person in?

Stephen Pound: I do not know whether I am unique in the House—I suspect not—but I have had several conversations with convicted criminals. There are no no-go areas for new Labour. I have visited a number of prisons, including Wormwood Scrubs, which is close to my constituency. I have asked burglars the obvious question: "Why do you do it?" They say that they want to grab as many electrical goods, credits cards, cash, cameras and so on as possible, and get out.
	The agony at the heart of our discussion is epitomised by the Monckton case. Can there be a more horrific, foul, murderous or sadistic case than that in which a decent, honourable man is slaughtered in his own home during a burglary? Yet for every such case, there are 99 in which the burglar just wants to get in and get out. If burglars think that when they get in they may be killed before they get out, they will inevitably start to consider the situation in terms of mutual antagonism. If the householder is to have a gun, as sure as eggs is eggs, the burglar will want a gun. If the householder has a bigger gun—guess what?—the burglar will have an even bigger gun.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me bring all hon. Members back to the Bill that is currently before the House.

Paul Goggins: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only has the Leader of the Opposition switched his position, but when he was Home Secretary, there were far more burglaries than today.
	We recognise—this is clear from the many voices raised in the debate both this morning and at other times—that there is a pressing need to ensure that householders fully understand the law. Steps have now been taken to address the need for clear information. We have already discussed at some length the leaflet entitled "Householders and the use of force against intruders", published by the CPS and the Association of Chief Police Officers earlier this week. The leaflet sets out in plain, straightforward language what rights householders have and what level of force they can use when confronted by an intruder. It makes it clear that
	"as a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence."
	I was struck by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made the point very forcefully in an earlier intervention that the different circumstances that people face will determine the level of force that it is reasonable for them to use.
	The leaflet also quite rightly explains, however, that if very excessive and gratuitous force is used by a householder, he could be prosecuted. I am thinking of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who talked extensively about the use of a cricket bat. If someone used a cricket bat to take defensive action against someone who came into his property, even if he had left that cricket bat conveniently to hand in case those circumstances arose, it would be reasonable to use the bat to defend himself. Clearly, if after hitting the burglar over the back of the head, making him unconscious, he continued to hit him over the head to point where he killed him, that would go beyond what was reasonable. That would be a very serious matter and the police would need to investigate it. Equally, if householders set traps to hurt or kill intruders, they would be acting with excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) suggested in an intervention that setting any kind of trap by someone who was trying to anticipate a burglary would somehow be wrong. The advice in the leaflet makes it clear that such a trap would have to be intended to hurt or kill a possible intruder.

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that I intend to make sure that those of my constituents who have a particular interest or experience in this field receive a copy of the leaflet. It is extremely helpful. We should recognise the professionalism of the police in these circumstances. On the comment from the hon. Member for North Thanet, I hope the experience will lead people to use the 999 service better. People can call 999 when they are in fear of a crime or an injury being committed. They do not have to wait until the crime has been committed, but they should not do what one of my constituents, unfortunately, did the other day—ring 999 when someone had damaged the wing mirror on his car, thus perhaps stopping the police attending a real emergency where life and limb were at risk.

Mike Hancock: It is true, though. Is the law on the side of home occupier?

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the law, which he often offers to the House, speaks with far more authority than I could.
	One issue that has not been raised is the danger that the Bill would pose to the police if it were to come into force. Just before Christmas, my wife and I heard something in the street outside where we live in London. We listened carefully and there were certainly sounds of someone trying to get access to the house next door. When we heard our next-door neighbour's window being knocked in and broken, my wife called the police, and I tried to monitor what was going on by looking through the peephole in the door. Because someone was trying to gain entry to that house, it would have been reasonable for the householder to have attacked the intruder. They could have done so almost without restraint if the Bill were in force.
	As it happened, the intruder to the house was actually a police officer. If the housebound lady who lived in the house had been tooled up ready to defend herself, perhaps with a firearm of some sort—that would not be unreasonable under the terms of the Bill—the police officer entering the house could have been placed in very great danger. I believe that the Bill would make people more ready to hold weapons ready for use in their house, more ready to use them and more ready to face accidental consequences such as endangering the life of police officers who may well have highly legitimate and authorised reasons for wanting to enter a house without the householder's knowledge.
	In this case, the lady in question had inadvertently pressed her alarm that summoned assistance. She had not realised that she had done so and therefore did not expect the police to arrive. The surprise arrival of a police officer through her window could have put that police office in great danger.